While thinking about language, it came to me that any form of communication is simply an attempt to manipulate the thoughts of another. For example, me typing this is forcing you, the reader, to think of the words that I typed and the meaning associated with these words. This begs the question is all communication manipulation, or is it something else? And if it is manipulation, where can one draw the line between benign and malevolent communication?

Lolwut

yup. im confused. maybe.....MORE EXAMPLES? I feel like i might knuz wutcher sayin, but not really. :T maybe? maybe not? is this cyber life?

What?!

Interesting... I never thought of it that way, but I see your point :o Though personally I have no idea where to draw the line, however I think if the communication used causes someone to do something morally/culturally wrong, then I guess it becomes malevolent. :<
Good food for thought though~

I think you're going about that method of thought from the wrong angle. For the most part, you're on the right track, but you veered off down the side of the cliff when you used the word "manipulation."

Rather, it's not manipulation. Communication is the give-and-take exchange of information between two or more individuals. Now, what that information is might be bad for the individual receiving it, but the communication itself isn't manipulating directly. It is a tool, and that is all.

Of course all communication is a form of manipulation. Manipulation and influence are pretty much the same thing, and I've never been one to argue semantics.
99% of human behavior is centered around manipulation, be it manipulating our environment, the people around us, or even our selves. There really is no "set line" between benign and malevolent. Good and evil are both inventions of man therefore they are fluid and case sensitive. I personally, see nothing wrong in manipulating a client or a situation to better suit my needs. However, other people might view it in the exact opposite light.

>>6 Ahhh but reilyx, tools are used for manipulation, aren't they?

Oh my...OH WOW! You're...You're right! It at least seems that way!

(By the way: This doesn't belong on main)

>>9 It's a topic of discussion, it belongs here. Read the board description before calling out someone.

I actually agree with reilyx on the most part, although I do think that there are more purposes to communication apart from manipulation and the give and take of information. Functions such as social rapport, entertainment and the expression of thoughts and feelings all take part in the main drive for communication between people, whether the mode of communication would be written, spoken or signed.

To say that all forms of communication are meant to manipulate another point of view sounds a bit like an exaggerated picture of society to me. If >>1's statement is true, then we truly live in a dark and sinister world in which we should hide in isolation in our own basement. Thankfully, it's not. To prove this, let me ask you something, how is what I'm typing up right now malevolent? What am I going to gain from stating my own opinion?

>>8 Yes, a tool may be used for manipulation. However, the topic of the thread suggests:

Communication = Manipulation

Wheres, in reality I see:

Communication = Tool

At no point in my perspective does communication directly equal manipulation. Sure, communication may be used as the tool that it is, but that is not necessarily the goal 100% of the time. If communication were ALWAYS used to manipulate, I might agree, but it simply isn't. It is quite commonly used to exchange information, with no intent to manipulate.

To clarify, manipulation need not necessarily be malevolent. Rather, it simply implies that communication limits thought and forces another to think a certain way, at least for a time. Thank you all for your opinions, they are interesting and informative to say the least.

>>9 Shut the fuck up and die.

Communication, in it's purest essence, is a manner through which individuals can convey ideas to others. For example, language is a form of communication, which allows people to communicate ideas to others. Language itself relies on the fact that words carry the same meaning between every individual.

In terms of the suggestion that communication implies manipulation, there is some truth to this statement, since Person A is using communication to convey a meaning to Person B. This doesn't mean that that they are necessarily trying to achieve something negative through their communication, it may also be positive.

Perhaps the word "manipulation" itself carries negative connotations, which is the meaning that most of you have decided to interpret it as. Language relies on each word having the same meaning between users, like how the word "rain" will have the same meaning for all English speakers. But even a simple concept such as "rain" can hold many different variations, since every individual will have their own idea for what "rain" is. Like, if I said the word "cat", most people will think of a cat, but their visualisation of the animal cat will be different, it may be a ginger cat, or a grey cat, or a black and white cat. They're still thinking of a cat, but it's not going to be the exact same cat that another person is thinking of.

Communication is DESIGNED to manipulate, whether you feel that's true or not is up to you to decide.

P.s: What the fuck did I just type.

Communication cannot be maniplulation since one is only speaking to the other.

>>16 Yes, it is only speaking, but it is a tool to manipulate. While you're communicating you are telling someone else your ideas and opinions about things which, if said the right way, can change their ideas and views of things. Depending on the situation, Communication can absolutely be a form of manipulation.

haha like you guys are being manipulated into having this argument huh? How childish.

All right. Let me give you an example, if I was your best friend, and I had called you claiming I had an emergency down the street. As you no doubt rushed to the scene, as any fellow dollar would, I just do happened to convince a group of punks that you had taunted them, and left them waiting for you at that paritcular street. Where you would possibly be beaten, stabbed, or shot to death. And I could do all of this by only knowing you, and one of those punks, and your respective cell phone numbers. Communication at its finest.

While all of these examples are relevant and interesting, the deeper question I attempted to ask was if any type of communication was manipulative. For example, even an innocuous statement such as it is raining is manipulative in the sense that it forces the listener to think of rain or the weather, limiting the freedom of thought they once had.

That's just a very negative way to look at it. If you look at it that way, almost everything is a manipulation of the mind. The mind only thinks about what it is stimulated to - there is literally never a moment when it isn't assailed by sensory information or memories, already "limiting its freedom" to pay attention to that specific thing.

If I smell something good, I get hungry, and start thinking of food. Does that mean the smell manipulated my mind into thinking of food, limiting my freedom of thought for that moment from everything but food? You could say yes, but that is a silly choice of words.

However, look at it this way - could I still think of anything else, and be aware that my mind is thinking the way it is? Of course. And in that sense, it isn't being manipulated, necessarily, but consciously driven to that particular thought.

What you're saying is that people have the ability to invoke thoughts in others through communication, and that is true. It's far from manipulation, though - that takes a lot more from circumstance. If you want to be picky, "manipulation" in this context is just a more malicious form of "influencing." It implies what you do is wrong and hurtful, which is only true if you take it to its logical extreme. In truth, communication is just another way to influence the senses, albeit in a more coherent and specific fashion.

And in any case, that leads into what Tsukitty explained >>15.

>>21 Exactly what I wanted to say.

*Everything* is manipulation.

that is very observant most people would never think that communication is a form of manipulation but in a way it is right.

I never thought of it that way thats smart

Ok you're right. That was a very negative way to look at it, however the point I was trying to make is from the comfort of my home I could take advantage of two different groups of people's views and pit them aganist each other. It was to showcase the dramactic impact it could possibly have.

No.

Manipulation: 1.: to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner
2a : to manage or utilize skillfully b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage
3: to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose

So by definition, communication itself is not manipulation, though it does have the potential to be used as a tool for manipulative purposes.

Bamp.

Communication is not manipulation. By writing those words, you are not forcing me to read them. I can completely ignore your post, as I have done to most of the replies, and not read it. I can ignore what someone tells me, as I do to most people when I know that I won't like what they say. I have to say that calling communication a tool for manipulation is still not quite right. Communication can only be a tool for manipulation if the person actually listens. Even then, it would be an attempt of manipulation and not manipulation.

The relationship between communication and manipulation is not one that can be described in words. One can only be manipulated if they are not 100% sure on what they want to do. If a person will not listen, than you cannot manipulate them. Communication it more of a suggestion. By communicating, you are suggesting your point-of-view to another to process and think upon, but it is not possible if the person will not listen or has no chance of changing their minds.

Even if they will listen and have a chance on changing their minds, you cannot manipulate just by communicating. There are many other factors that have to be added in before you can really make communication manipulation.


Even if communication was manipulation, there is no set line between good and evil. Everyone has evil thoughts, just as everyone has good thoughts. It's the thoughts they act upon that makes them good or evil. It is almost always a mixture though. One may be slightly more good or evil, but they aren't all good or all evil. Most people are neutral.

Possibly. But by using obiligations that mormal people follow, I.E. your best friend is dying just down the road from your house, communication is used as a tool for manipulation. I do it everyday in order to discourage some, and empower others.

I feel that there is a very fine line between communication and manipulation. Communication is sharing some types of information with another. And sometimes, manipulation occurs without us even knowing it. I only say this because usually we think of manipulation in negative terms.

Bump (: